Finden Sie Ihren nächsten buch Favoriten

Werden Sie noch heute Mitglied und lesen Sie 30 Tage kostenlos
Liberalism's Last Hurrah: The Presidential Campaign of 1964

Liberalism's Last Hurrah: The Presidential Campaign of 1964

Vorschau lesen

Liberalism's Last Hurrah: The Presidential Campaign of 1964

Länge:
575 Seiten
8 Stunden
Herausgeber:
Freigegeben:
Mar 1, 2016
ISBN:
9781510702370
Format:
Buch

Beschreibung

The 1964 campaign was a turning point in the nation’s politics and one of the rare elections in American history marked by sharp ideological divisions. Differences over race relations, the Vietnam War, and federal power divided the parties, and racial issues dominated the campaign as candidates clashed over the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. Racial factions disrupted the Democratic Convention and George Wallace openly courted white supremacists. The election took place amid national turmoil and great historic events such as Freedom Summer, the murder of three civil rights activists in Mississippi, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Seldom had the nation faced a starker choice.

The election proved to be a watershed moment in American political historybut not in the way most contemporaries viewed it. Democrat Lyndon Johnson trounced Republican Barry Goldwater in a huge landslide. To most observers at the time, liberalism rode triumphant and conservatism crumbled, with some even talking of the demise of the Republican Party. But it was not to be, as the liberal wave crashed almost immediately and conservatives came to dominate a resurgent Republican Party in the late twentieth century.

Skyhorse Publishing, as well as our Arcade imprint, are proud to publish a broad range of books for readers interested in history--books about World War II, the Third Reich, Hitler and his henchmen, the JFK assassination, conspiracies, the American Civil War, the American Revolution, gladiators, Vikings, ancient Rome, medieval times, the old West, and much more. While not every title we publish becomes a New York Times bestseller or a national bestseller, we are committed to books on subjects that are sometimes overlooked and to authors whose work might not otherwise find a home.
Herausgeber:
Freigegeben:
Mar 1, 2016
ISBN:
9781510702370
Format:
Buch

Über den Autor


Ähnlich wie Liberalism's Last Hurrah

Ähnliche Bücher
Ähnliche Artikel

Buchvorschau

Liberalism's Last Hurrah - Gary A. Donaldson

Author

Introduction

The election of 1936 was a landmark in American politics. Franklin D. Roosevelt’s landslide victory over the Republican Alf Landon made it clear that the American people supported Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, while at the same time they accepted the Democrats’ campaign theme that the Republicans deserved the blame for the Great Depression. The 1936 election also solidified, for the first time, what is usually called the New Deal coalition, a loosely knit collection of groups that, for the most part, had little in common except that they had been the beneficiaries of New Deal programs. This coalition included such diverse groups as organized labor and farmers, urban ethnic groups and southern populists, middle-class homeowners and northeastern intellectuals. Through the remainder of Roosevelt’s terms this coalition became identified as liberal, although certain groups within it, particularly farmers and southern whites, could hardly meet that classification. Nevertheless this powerful coalition held together until after the war (despite some minor defections here and there), and developed into one of the most powerful political coalitions in American history. As the 1948 election approached—the first election since Roosevelt’s death and the first since the end of the war—Harry Truman tried almost desperately to keep the New Deal coalition alive. Through a series of political maneuvers, promises, statements and programs, Truman brought the often combative coalition together for what seemed to be one brief moment on November 3 and won the election.

The Republican response to five consecutive Democratic victories (including control of Congress for the twenty-year period except for two years between 1946 and 1948) was largely predictable. They turned away from their conservative leadership and nominated a series of moderate (even liberal) candidates in an attempt to follow what was apparently the national liberal trend. Led by the Northeastern Establishment, the Republicans nominated Wendell Willkie and Thomas Dewey in the three elections between 1940 and 1948—and lost. Conservative Republicans, led primarily by Ohio senator Robert Taft, complained in the wake of each defeat that the GOP had lost the election because it had lost its conservative message, that it was, in fact, offering no message beyond what they called me-tooism, a weak argument that the Republicans, if elected, would run the New Deal programs more efficiently than the Democrats. And that, conservative Republicans insisted, was no message at all. By the late 1940s, following Dewey’s second defeat, conservatives adopted a new phrase to make their point. They demanded a choice, not an echo. They argued that the party should nominate a conservative Republican to run against the messages and programs of Democratic party liberalism. Given such a clear choice, GOP conservatives insisted, American voters would chose conservatism.

Between Dwight D. Eisenhower’s election in 1952 and the 1964 campaign, the conservatives remained on the GOP sidelines while the party moderates and Northeastern Establishment ran the party and nominated the candidates. Finally, in 1964, with the rise of Barry Goldwater, the conservatives would get their chance. They would offer the nation a choice, and not an echo.

For the Democrats, major factions of the old New Deal coalition again rallied to elect John Kennedy in 1960. The 1964 campaign promised to be the first conservative-liberal political clash in over thirty years. Although it was Lyndon Johnson, and not Kennedy, who would run under the Democratic standard in 1964, Johnson accepted and fostered Kennedy’s liberal base and New Deal liberalism.

While on the campaign trail in Fresno, California, in March 1964, Goldwater told a crowd that the coming election would be one of major significance in American history: This is no stopgap election, he said. This is not one just for the record books. This is one for the history books.¹ When the votes were counted, however, it hardly looked that way. Despite all the hoopla and promise, Goldwater pulled only a few southern states and, by only a hair’s breadth, his own home state of Arizona. The rest of the nation was swept clean by the Lyndon Johnson juggernaut; even the Republican party bastion of the Midwest went for Johnson. It was a Democratic party victory that rivaled Roosevelt’s trouncing of Landon in 1936—the election that confirmed the successes of the New Deal, launched an extension of New Deal political power and programs, and brought together the New Deal coalition that laid the foundations of Democratic party dominance in Washington at least until Eisenhower.

The 1964 election, however, was not as it seemed. Goldwater’s campaign ended in ignominious defeat but it became the ideological basis of Ronald Reagan’s 1980 victory and the foundations of Republican party ideology for much of the remaining century. Goldwater, often touted by conservatives as Reagan’s John the Baptist, was the first national political figure to represent modern American conservatism. Johnson’s victory, as overwhelming as it was, quickly became a mandate lost, a political tragedy of almost epic proportions. Within four years, Johnson’s 1964 mandate was gone, swallowed up by the Vietnam War and the general failures of the Great Society programs. The election of 1964 was not the beginnings of some new liberal era in American history, as many pundits and observers predicted. It was instead the last hurrah of New Deal liberalism and the last great electoral success of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition—the coalition that he built in his 1936 victory over Landon. If the coalition continued in any form beyond 1964 it was considerably weakened; and never again did it wield the political power it did between 1936 and 1964.

The 1964 election also brought an end to a political process that began in 1948. In that year Truman decided that the northern urban black vote was more important than the southern white vote, that black voters in large northern cities could help deliver the big electoral vote states like Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, and California. Following his aides’ advice, Truman threw just enough support to the fledgling post-war civil rights movement to pull the northern black vote, and he won the election. A few Deep South states deserted the Democrats (because of their civil rights tilt) and followed Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats into a third party protest. This act was the beginning of the white South’s slow move from the Democrats to the Republicans. By 1964, that shift was generally complete—at least in regard to national elections. In open revolt against the Democratic party’s support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, much of the white South finally abandoned the Democrats and voted Republican, now the party of Barry Goldwater and states’ rights. And in the midst of that campaign, Strom Thurmond—the very symbol of southern conservatism—switched parties and became a Goldwater Republican. During most of the national elections through the remainder of the century since 1964, the South has stayed in the Republican column.

These two elections, 1948 and 1964, changed the character of both parties. The 1948 election forced the Democrats to maintain the New Deal coalition that included labor, traditional liberals, farmers, and northern African Americans—a coalition that (by 1948) excluded the needs of white southern conservatives and segregationists. It was the election of 1948 that defined the post-war Democratic party more than any other election. For the Republicans, the election of 1964 was the defining moment in their party’s history. In that year they put together a geographic coalition of conservatives that included the West, the Midwest, and the South, while rejecting the old Northeast-Midwest coalition (led by northeastern moderates) that had failed the Republicans since the 1930s defeats. That Republican conservative coalition remained intact throughout the remainder of the twentieth century.

The 1964 election may not have rocked the nation at the time, but it set the foundations for American politics for the remainder of the century. It was New Deal liberalism’s last hurrah and the birth of modern conservatism; the death of one and the birth of another. Newsweek wrote, No one has ever seen a Presidential campaign quite like it.²

1

Conservatives in the Modern World of Eisenhower, and the Rise of Goldwater

The election of 1952 finally ended the Republican drought. Dwight D. Eisenhower, once he took his oath of office in January 1953, would be the first Republican in the White House since Herbert Hoover was voted out of office in 1932. For twenty long years the Democrats had controlled the presidency while the Republicans sat on the sidelines as a sort of loyal opposition to the expansion of American liberalism. For most of a very full generation, a conservative Republican leader wrote years later, the Republican party had been the shapeless, gutless alternative to well-formed, principled Democratic programs and candidates.¹ Another called the GOP a satellite of the Democratic party, a political Doppelganger that moves only with the impulse of its original.² In an attempt to harness the American mood for themselves, Republicans had presented the nation’s voters with a series of presidential candidates who promised to do the job in Washington better, more efficiently, and with a greater anti-communist commitment than the Democrats. Wendell Willkie, the 1940 Republican offering, had, in fact, voted for Roosevelt in 1936—a point that Willkie and the Republicans made often in hopes of pulling moderate votes away from Roosevelt. Tom Dewey, the Republican candidate in 1944 and again in 1948, was often referred to as a liberal, a candidate with strong ties to labor and farmers, plus a record on civil rights that was often described as progressive. By the early 1950s Dewey had become, to GOP conservatives, the symbol of Republican failure, the leader of a coalition of moderates and liberals primarily centered in the Northeast who sanctioned the New Deal and touted a foreign policy of global engagement known as internationalism.

Through the twenty years of GOP drought between Hoover and Ike there had been a few bright spots for the Republicans. In the 1946 mid-term elections, the first election after the war and the first election since Roosevelt’s death, the Republicans made a grand sweep of Congress. American voters seemed to be saying that the time of Democratic dominance was coming to an end, that the era of the New Deal and its federal management of the economy were over. But two years later, Harry Truman, Roosevelt’s successor in the White House, rallied the Democratic forces once again and won the presidency, along with a Democratic majority in Congress. The defeat was devastating to Republicans. The voters, it seemed, had reaffirmed the New Deal and rejected the Republican alternative.

Throughout these post-war years a number of conservative Republicans led by Ohio senator Robert Taft had argued that the Republican party was constantly losing political ground to the Democrats because it offered a political philosophy that was only barely distinct from what the Democrats were offering. What voters would respond to, these conservatives argued, was a significant alternative to the liberalism of the Democratic party. That alternative was a conservative one, which was, generally, less government spending (leading to a balanced budget), less federal interference in state and local-level affairs, a staunch anti-communism, and a strong (though unilateral) national defense.

After each GOP loss through the 1940s conservatives gained control of the party apparatus and began building their strength in anticipation of running one of their own in the next election. But in each instance, as the next election neared, a liberal-moderate coalition grabbed control of the convention and won the nomination. This scenario was played out in 1940 when Willkie won the nomination, and then again in 1944 and 1948 when Dewey was nominated. After the 1948 GOP defeat, conservatives again took over the party structure and looked forward to placing Taft in nomination four years later. But as the 1952 election approached, the moderates, behind Eisenhower, steamrolled all opposition. Taft made his strongest bid yet for the nomination that year, but Ike and the moderates were simply too strong.

Electability had always been a problem for the conservatives. They had never had a charismatic, attractive figure to represent them as a presidential candidate, a character whose mere physical presence could excite the masses and send voters to the polls in swarms. Certainly, Bob Taft was not that. Taft had a distinguished career in the Senate; to be sure, he was one of the most effective conservative legislators in the post-war era. But he was not an appealing figure and was never an electable presidential candidate. In 1948 Taft hired an image-maker to turn his dour personality into something that the masses would see as an appealing fatherly type. The effort was a dismal failure. It was a common refrain among Republicans in Washington in the 1940s and up until 1952 that Taft can’t win, that he simply could not match up to Eisenhower—or even Dewey, whose own personal appeal was considerably less than charismatic. As one Republican party operative noted, Taft was … the first notable casualty of the age of image.³ At the 1952 GOP convention in Chicago, Senator John Bricker of Ohio, a long-time Taft supporter, withdrew Taft’s name from consideration for the third time in twelve years. And for the fifth time in as many elections, Republican conservatives were forced to compromise their principles and reluctantly get behind a moderate candidate for president. To the conservatives, the eastern-liberal-moderate wing of the party had, again, denied them a chance to run a conservative candidate.

The 1952 election was not all bad for Republican conservatives. Obviously, a Republican had won the White House for the first time since the Great Depression. In addition, Ike’s coattails were enormous; he brought with him a Republican Congress, the first since the 80th Congress in 1946. But Eisenhower was a moderate on most issues (discontented conservative Republicans called him a liberal), and through the 1950s he slowly split the Republican party between the conservatives on the right and moderates on the left. Eisenhower called his political philosophy Modern Republicanism, a plan that conservatives snubbed as little more than a validation of the New Deal plus a foreign policy of internationalism. They countered with their own policies, which they called Real Republicanism. The distinction would not become important until after the 1956 election when Ike was a lame duck and conservatives in Congress could no longer depend on his coattails to stay in office.

Despite the Republican sweep in 1952, GOP conservatives were hurt badly in the election. Several Republican senators on the Far Right lost their seats that year, including James Kem of Missouri, Harry Cain of Washington, Zales Ecton of Wyoming, and Patrick Hurley of New Mexico. In addition, nearly all conservative senatorial candidates ran behind Eisenhower’s numbers, while Republican moderates and liberals generally ran ahead of him.⁴ Even Senators Joe McCarthy and William Jenner, the two most prominent figures in the Republican party’s communist hunt, would probably have lost had it not been for Ike’s long coattails. The political winds, it seemed, were not blowing to the right in 1952, at least within the GOP.

Among the election’s bright spots for the conservatives in 1952 was Barry Goldwater’s slim victory over Senate majority leader Ernest McFarland in Arizona. Goldwater was an avowed Taftite, but he was forced to attribute his November victory to Ike’s popularity in Arizona. Goldwater’s victory, however, was something of an affirmation of McCarthy’s power. McCarthy had personally campaigned against McFarland and three other Democratic incumbents, and all four failed in their bids for reelection.

The election also showed that the South was beginning to find its way, albeit slowly, into the Republican party. The white South had made up the conservative wing of the Democratic party since the end of Reconstruction. At various times in the late 1920s and again in the late 1930s the South exhibited discontent with the Democrats, but until 1948 they stayed in the party, voting almost solidly Democratic in each presidential election. It was in 1948 that Truman pushed for the urban black vote and defeated Dewey in one of the greatest political upsets of the century. Many white southerners, however, bolted the party and joined Strom Thurmond’s Dixiecrats. Thurmond took four southern states, while Truman won a large number of African-American votes in several northern urban areas. For Truman it was a good trade-off, but it meant that the Democrats had chosen northern urban black votes over southern white votes, and this left large numbers of white southerners without a political home. The result was that in 1952 Eisenhower cracked the South, and that region began its long slow journey into the Republican party. Eisenhower that year took the states that had gone for Thurmond in 1948, plus Georgia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and the border states of Kentucky and West Virginia. The Republicans would have trouble hanging on to the South in the next two elections, but it was clear as civil rights became a more volatile issue that large numbers of southern whites would vote Republican under certain circumstances.

Divisions within the Republican party also revolved around the issue of foreign and domestic communism. The Far Right was virtually engulfed in an anti-communist crusade. Led by Wisconsin senator Joseph McCarthy, they searched relentlessly for communists inside the federal government, and they considered even the slightest diplomatic concession to international communism (most specifically the Soviet Union and Communist China) to be an act of appeasement. At the 1952 GOP convention the conservatives controlled the platform committee and forced a plank into the platform that called the Democratic party’s foreign policy of containment negative, futile and immoral, because it abandons countless human beings to a despotism and godless terrorism. Containment, they believed, was not aggressive enough. It should be replaced with a policy of liberation.⁵ Although Eisenhower was nominated and then elected on this right wing-generated platform, he always steered clear of supporting such a policy, realizing that liberation of communist-held territory was much the same as invasion. The Communist Chinese intervention in Korea was, of course, the primary lesson. Many conservatives, however, saw Eisenhower’s lack of aggression against international communism as weakness—appeasement of the nation’s enemy.

Eisenhower rankled the right almost immediately after he came to office by nominating Charles Chip Bohlen to be the nation’s ambassador to Moscow, obviously a sensitive post. Bohlen had been a career officer in the state department (precisely the place where Joe McCarthy was insisting there were communists giving away America’s secrets), and he had been Roosevelt’s translator at the Yalta Conference. Yalta had become, to the members of the Republican right, the Great Betrayal, the Democratic party’s delivery of Eastern Europe into communism. To make matters worse, Bohlen testified at the Senate confirmation hearing that the problem at Yalta had not been the agreement, but that Stalin had violated the agreement—precisely the official Democratic party’s stand. It looked like the issue would split the Republicans, but Taft, wanting desperately to maintain party harmony, went along with the Bohlen appointment, then followed with a demand to the White House, no more Bohlens!⁶ The incident convinced the Republicans on the right that Eisenhower would be following the Democrats on foreign policy issues, and despite Taft’s surrender to harmony, the Bohlen nomination split the Republicans further. Bohlen was finally approved overwhelmingly, but in the vote on the Senate floor Jenner, Styles Bridges, Bricker, Everett Dirksen, McCarthy, and Goldwater, along with seven others on the Republican right, voted to reject Bohlen.

The situation in Korea also served to split the Republicans. As Eisenhower had promised during the campaign, he pushed quickly after his inauguration to bring an end to the war—much to the disgust of many on the GOP right. The armistice, signed in April 1953 with the North Koreans and the Chinese Communists, was perceived by conservatives as the worst kind of appeasement, an acceptance of the status quo ante, an unwillingness to confront and defeat the enemy. Republican conservatives like Jenner and George Malone of Nevada even insisted that the armistice was, in fact, a victory for international communism and a defeat for the forces of Western democracy. William Knowland, the conservative senator from California, argued that the armistice would cause the United States to lose the balance of Asia.⁷ Eisenhower’s willingness to end the war in Korea was even more offensive to conservatives because two years earlier General Douglas MacArthur, the first American commander in Korea and a darling of the Republican right wing, was relieved of his command by President Truman (as many conservatives perceived it) for advocating a complete victory over communism in Asia. To those on the right, MacArthur became a martyr to the cause of anti-communism and a symbol for the conservative perception of freedom. To many right-wing Republicans, Eisenhower became an appeaser. They even went so far as to applaud South Korean president Syngman Rhee’s eleventh-hour defiance of Eisenhower and the armistice.

GOP conservatives also blamed the failures in Korea on the United Nations—or more specifically, the American government’s willingness to compromise its foreign policy initiatives in order to meet UN objectives. To those on the right like Taft, Jenner, House Speaker Joseph Martin, Bridges, Knowland, McCarthy, and others, America’s foreign policy should always be unilateral and should never be compromised by the goals of any international organization like the UN, where the Soviet Union maintained veto power over all U.S. military action. Eisenhower’s only response to such complaints from his party’s right was that the United States simply could not go it alone in foreign affairs. The GOP right prepared to mount an attack against the president on the issue (with Taft in the lead), with the potential of causing a full breach in the party. Taft, however, fell ill with the cancer that would eventually take his life, and without his leadership the GOP conservatives pulled back from the issue. At the same time, polls showed clearly that most Americans were anxious to get out of the Korean quagmire—nearly at any cost. In fact, the armistice was a popular decision. Nevertheless, the administration’s decision to end the war increased the already growing antagonisms between the GOP right and the Eisenhower moderates; and conservatives continued to oppose the nation’s roll in the UN.

Anti-communism, more than any other issue, defined the Republican right in the early 1950s, and the preeminent Republican crusader against communism was Joe McCarthy, senator from Wisconsin. McCarthy had been in the public eye since 1950, holding Senate hearings and accusing any number of federal employees, mostly inside the State Department, of being communists or communist sympathizers. Eisenhower disapproved of McCarthy and his crusade, and as the Eisenhower administration matured in office, the disapproval turned to hatred. Eisenhower came to loathe McCarthy, Stephen Ambrose has written, almost as much as he hated Hitler.⁸ McCarthy had taken a swipe at Eisenhower’s friend and mentor General George Marshall following the firing of MacArthur in 1951. Marshall had supported MacArthur’s dismissal, and McCarthy’s response was to accuse Marshall, on the floor of the Senate, of being associated with a conspiracy so immense and an infamy so black as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man.⁹ It looked as though Ike and McCarthy would clash. But it was not that simple. McCarthy maintained the support of the GOP right wing while Eisenhower carried the party’s moderates. Any clash over McCarthy would further divide the two wings of the party. Also, the nations’ anti-communists (in and out of Congress) had come to believe that any attack on McCarthy aided the growth of communism. As late as January 1954 a full 50 percent of Americans polled by Gallup approved of what McCarthy was doing; only 29 percent disapproved.¹⁰

One of McCarthy’s primary supporters was Arizona senator Barry Goldwater. Over the years, the two men had become good friends. They first met in the 1940s when McCarthy made occasional trips to Arizona for health reasons. A decade later in Washington, McCarthy and Goldwater became Senate colleagues and personal friends who often shared an occasional drink. As McCarthy’s methods and objectives came under fire, and several even on the right abandoned him, Goldwater stood by his friend to the bitter end. Even decades later, Goldwater wrote, I couldn’t approve of some of the charges McCarthy was making, but there was a tremendous amount of evidence to support his allegations…. I supported McCarthy’s efforts to bring this out in the open.¹¹ Goldwater’s support of McCarthy went a long way toward straining the relationship between Eisenhower and Goldwater that was to come, and between the moderates and the right wing of the Republican party.

A clash between the conservatives led by McCarthy and the moderates led by the president seemed imminent over Eisenhower’s naming of Walter Bedell Smith as Undersecretary of State. Smith, as secretary to the general staff, had been Ike’s close confidant and personal friend during the war; in the Truman administration he had headed the CIA and then been appointed ambassador to the Soviet Union. But Smith had defended John Paton Davis, an advisor to Smith in Moscow and now one of McCarthy’s favorite targets. Davis had been one of several China hands in the State Department in the late 1940s, and McCarthy and other communist hunters on the Republican right now blamed this group for the fall of China to communism in 1949. To McCarthy, Davis was a fellow traveler and Smith was his defender. Ike dealt with the problem by convincing Taft to tell McCarthy to lay off the Smith nomination.

Still, the stage seemed set for an Eisenhower-McCarthy clash, but no such clash ever really came. Ike clearly saw that any personal attack on McCarthy in the press, or through any other means, would further split the Republicans, diminish the credibility of his administration, and add fuel to McCarthy’s engine. Nothing would probably please him more, Ike wrote a friend, than to get the publicity that would be generated by public repudiation by the President.¹² He could not, however, sit by idly and allow McCarthy to carry on as he wished. From behind the scenes (where Eisenhower often felt the most comfortable dealing with sensitive issues) the president quietly exerted executive privilege and denied to McCarthy’s committee access to all aspects of the executive branch of government—including both records and people. Ike’s strategy of information strangulation (along with McCarthy’s own harsh image, which took a beating on national television) brought down the Wisconsin senator. In early December 1954, the Senate censured McCarthy and that era in American history came to an end.

Eisenhower’s tactics in dealing with McCarthy were ultimately effective, although he is often criticized for not confronting McCarthy directly and bringing an end to the red hunts. But McCarthy’s antics were generally popular, and to a growing number of conservative Americans any attack on McCarthy was tantamount to an appeasement of communism. Barry Goldwater agreed, arguing before the Senate that any assault on McCarthy or his cause by the administration may well turn out to be a field day against America’s global anti-communist policy.¹³ Then, of course, there was the question of party unity. Through the entire McCarthy episode, Eisenhower maintained the appearance of staying above the fray, and that reduced the possibility of a wider split in the party. More importantly, however, McCarthy’s collapse without any visible attack directly from the White House badly damaged the Republican right. Congressional conservatives were left holding the bag on the issue once McCarthy was gone and they received much of the blame for the excesses of McCarthy’s actions. In 1958, and then again in 1960, the Republican right suffered badly at the polls, while Eisenhower and the moderates—generally unscathed by McCarthyism—maintained a tight grip on the party machinery.

When Eisenhower came to office in January 1953, the members of the Republican right expected their new president to lead them in a point-by-point dismantling of New Deal programs, something Taft and others on the right had promised to do at least since the war. Eisenhower, however, wanted to lead his party and the nation down the middle of the road—and not to the right. In fact, he wanted to work with the Democrats, build a bipartisan consensus, and emerge as a national president. He had no intention of going to war with the Democrats over domestic issues. This was something that the Republicans on the right simply could not abide.

There was no domestic issue more volatile among right-wing Republicans than the national budget. Democrats had shown no need to balance the budget for twenty years, a near sacrilegious travesty to those on the right who, since at least the 1890s, had come to see a balanced budget as a signal to big business that the nation’s economy was sound. In the 1952 campaign the Republicans (explicitly in their party’s convention platform and in several of Ike’s speeches) had promised a balanced budget and with it a sound economy and economic prosperity. In April 1953 all that collapsed, however, when Eisenhower, in a briefing to Republican congressional leaders, admitted that he would be unable to balance his first budget. Taft was livid. He jumped up and pounded the table: The one primary thing we promised the American people was reduction of expenditures! With a [budget] like this, we’ll never elect a Republican Congress in 1954! Then he added, You’re taking us down the same road Truman traveled!¹⁴ Both men had notorious tempers, and the fragile Republican coalition might have ended there, but Eisenhower remained calm and explained to Taft the need for certain expenditures, particularly military expenditures to maintain strength amid what was perceived as communist activity in several regions of the world. He then promised a balanced budget in 1954 and Taft calmed down. The breach was plugged.¹⁵

Eisenhower continued, however, to run down the middle of the road, the place he believed the American people wanted him to be, and that often meant working with the Democrats, particularly conservative Democrats. Again, the right chaffed. The president, for instance, proposed expanding Social Security, the New Deal program that many on the right considered an example of creeping socialism and the imminent collectivization of America. The administration’s bill would have added 10 million workers to the Social Security rolls, but congressional right-wingers slapped it down in 1953. A year later, with an election looming and Democrats poised to make gains, the bill finally made its way through Congress—despite objections from the right. Eisenhower also proposed what he called Middle Way, a plan in which the federal government would underwrite private health insurance plans, expand public housing programs, and reform the Taft-Hartley Act. These initiatives also faced strenuous opposition from the GOP right, and all were either defeated in committee or produced only innocuous legislative results.

In June 1953, the nation’s conservatives were dealt a blow that damaged their cause for nearly ten years. Their leader, Robert Taft, died of cancer. Although Taft was never truly presidential material, he was the conservatives’ ideological center. He was powerful enough to demand the president’s ear, and it was Taft who had, over the years, maintained a close relationship with southern conservatives in the Democratic party. Without him, conservative strength diminished immediately on Capitol Hill, particularly in the face of the growing power of GOP moderates. Taft’s death marked the beginning of the end of a brief moment of power for the right, and in fact the GOP right remained leaderless and weak until the rise of Barry Goldwater in the very late 1950s.

Two months after Taft’s death, William Knowland, a right-winger in the Taft mold and a constant critic of the administration’s foreign policy, took over Taft’s place as majority leader in the Senate. Knowland was never able to fill Taft’s shoes, and he was basically ineffectual in challenging the White House. Under Knowland’s leadership GOP conservatives weakened. Nevertheless, as majority leader in the Senate, Knowland was possibly the second most important Republican in the nation and he immediately began to position himself as the right wing’s choice for president, if not in 1956, then in 1960.

Without Taft, the right was in disarray, and within months Eisenhower began to take advantage of the opportunity to pull the party back to the middle and to purge the right. He began by making inroads in the Republican National Committee, a traditional bastion of the right. By 1956 Eisenhower loyalists controlled two-thirds of the RNC and forty-one state chairmanships. As the power of the moderates continued to grow in the late 1950s, the conservatives seemed on their way toward political extinction.

At the same time, many GOP conservatives began to see the advantages of Eisenhower’s popularity. After all, they naturally reasoned, a moderate Republican in office was preferable to a Democratic president. Powerful one-time congressional leaders on the right like Dirksen, Martin, and even occasionally Knowland, all one-time Taft allies, had by 1956 begun voting the line with Eisenhower and the moderates. In the summer of that year, five months before the next election, the National Review (the right’s primary organ by this time) complained that those still refusing to support Eisenhower were being consigned to outer darkness…. With such skill have [Eisenhower] and his associates conducted the movement [and] it has become quite clear what the Republican Party is not: It is not the Party of Senator Taft.¹⁶ Certainly, this had a great deal to do with the coming 1956 election in which Eisenhower was expected to overrun the Democrats and pull behind him some very generous coattails. By 1956, Ike’s popularity and effectiveness had neutralized, quieted, or absorbed much of the Republican right wing.

Even Richard Nixon felt the shift. He had been tapped in 1952 as Eisenhower’s running mate to appease the right. By 1956, however, Nixon had reinvented himself as an Eisenhower moderate. He had supported the administration on all levels through the first term, which had rattled the right-wing leadership. Nixon, however, believed he saw the future: that Eisenhower’s moderation was becoming overwhelmingly popular in America, while the right wingers were on their way out the door, at least for the moment. Despite Nixon’s unabashed loyalty through Ike’s first term, Eisenhower felt no need to pander to the right in 1956, and he at least toyed with the idea of dumping Nixon from the ticket. Nixon, of course, remained on the ticket that year, but it was not because of any pressure put on Eisenhower from the right.

The weakness of the right in the Republican party became apparent in 1955 when Eisenhower announced he would attend the Geneva Conference for the purpose of pursuing a policy of peaceful co-existence with the Soviets. This to conservatives was nothing less than an accommodating relationship with the forces of international communism. Again the right chaffed. McCarthy, down but not yet out in 1955, led a right-wing fight to tie Eisenhower’s hands at the Geneva Conference by passing a resolution in the Senate that would bar the president from discussing any topic with the Soviets except the liberation of Eastern Europe. The opposition to the resolution was led by Senate Democratic majority leader Lyndon Johnson. The resolution was finally forced to the floor, where the weakness of the right became all too apparent. Only three senators stood with McCarthy: Jenner from Indiana and two mavericks. Ironically, McCarthy’s action united the Republicans behind Eisenhower like they had never before been united. The whole incident, however, left the GOP right gasping for air. We have the spectacle of cannibalism holding forth, a frustrated Barry Goldwater told the Senate. We find the Republican Party … busily chewing on itself.¹⁷

In September 1955, Eisenhower had a heart attack and the dynamic of American politics changed immediately—or at least it threatened to. One of the first rumors that began circulating on Capitol Hill and in the press was that Ike’s brother Milton might be willing to step into Ike’s shoes as a candidate of the moderates in 1956 if the general was not physically capable. Eisenhower himself, while he was recovering and uncertain of his own future, suggested to his press secretary, James Hagerty, that Dewey might be ready. [H]e represents my way of thinking, Eisenhower told Hagerty. After a pause, Hagerty responded that the Republican right would revolt and name their own candidate—and that the party might even split. Ike relented. I guess you’re right. The discussion then turned to Nixon. Both men agreed, however, that the vice president was not up to the job.¹⁸

The Republican right saw Eisenhower’s heart attack as an opportunity to run one of their own if the president demurred in 1956, and they looked to Knowland, really the only leader they had. It was the editors at the National Review, primarily William F. Buckley, Jr., who first convinced Knowland to run in 1956. In the magazine’s first issue, which came out in November 1955 (just two months after Eisenhower’s heart attack), an article by Knowland assailed the president for negotiating with the Soviets and seeking peaceful coexistence at the Geneva Conference. Then on the floor of the Senate, Knowland continued to hammer at what he called the Trojan Horse of Coexistence, and he often called for a blockade of China and an American withdrawal from the UN.¹⁹ But all the speculation and rumors ended in February when an obviously recovered Eisenhower appeared fit on television before the nation—and then made it clear that he would run in 1956.

The GOP convention in San Francisco was a coronation for Eisenhower. It was clear that he would win the election easily, and that his coattails would be long and generous. The conservative right, of course, had nowhere to go except to jump on the winning bandwagon and support the president. At the convention, however, the right had a moment in the limelight when they conjured up, in several speeches, a tribute to the spirit of Bob Taft. California governor Goodwin Knight announced near the end of the convention that the Republicans would leave the Cow Palace marching arm in arm.²⁰ And as the campaign got under way and Republicans of all types rode the Eisenhower bandwagon to victory, the smell of unity was clearly in the air. Life thought it recognized a New Republican Harmony.²¹ But the party had serious problems.

Eisenhower did win big in 1956. He carried 57.3 percent of the popular vote and won forty-one states totaling 457 electoral votes to Adlai Stevenson’s seven states (all in the South) and seventy-three electoral votes. It was a definite mandate for Eisenhower and his administration. Ike’s coattails, however, were not quite as long as the Republicans had hoped. In a major setback, the Republicans lost control of Congress again. The message was clear. America liked Ike, but they did not necessarily like the Republicans. It was, in fact, the first time since 1848 that voters presented a newly elected president with a Congress in which his party controlled neither house. And in that election a popular general, Zachary Taylor, headed a political party, the Whigs, that was essentially in its death throes. In 1956, Congress changed little, with the Democrats picking up only one Senate seat and two House seats. In the Senate the Democratic edge was forty-nine to forty-seven; and in the House the Democratic majority remained substantial at 232 to 199. What was remarkable, of course, was that the Democrats made any gains at all, given the magnitude of Ike’s victory.

On election night, Eisenhower made an appropriate acceptance speech and then headed off for a quick vacation on the Monterey Peninsula in California. But in his speech he left something for the Republican right to chew on. America, he said, has approved Modern Republicanism.²² To Ike, that had been the mandate. The GOP right was now so weak, and he was so strong within the party as a result of the election mandate, that he could move forward without any concern for dissension from the right. It was truly Ike ascendant, mostly at the expense of the conservatives.

Eisenhower’s concept of Modern Republicanism is difficult to define. He himself never really defined it. In 1954 he remarked to James Hagerty that he wanted to find a word to put ahead of Republican—something like ‘New’ or ‘Modern’ or something.²³ A few liberal-minded Republicans tried to give Modern Republicanism some credence and specificity, but their ideas were never really accepted by Eisenhower or the moderate wing of the party, and some like George Aiken of Vermont insisted that the party drop the term because it was subject to any number of interpretations.²⁴ In fact, it is difficult to see any move by Eisenhower in his second term that was substantially new or much different from his first term. He remained generally where he had always been—in the middle of the road—and most observers simply passed off Modern Republicanism as a political catch phrase with no real definition. But the phrase stuck in the throats of the party’s right wing. In fact, when Eisenhower used the phrase and then refused to follow it up with any definition or description, the right-wingers put their own definition on it. To right-wing newcomers like conservative writer William Rusher, Modern Republicanism was specific. It was not a political philosophy, but the culmination of Ike’s moderation, his middle-of-the-road stance. Thus the GOP right defined Modern Republicanism by adding up the things they disliked about Eisenhower’s entire administration. It was an increase in welfare spending, an expanded role of the government in the lives of individuals and institutions, reduced military spending, and a peaceful coexistence with the Soviet Union. By 1957 Modern Republicanism had a definition, but it was never Eisenhower’s definition. By then Rusher and others had added to the list such things as Ike’s handling of the Suez Crisis, his failure to aid the Hungarian Revolution, and even his mishandling of Sputnik.²⁵ Modern Republicanism became all that the GOP right opposed in the party. It became the battle line for the 1960s.

William Big Bill Knowland was never to the conservative movement what Taft had been, but after Taft’s death Knowland, from his position as Republican leader in the Senate and titular head of the Republican right, began making noises as a presidential candidate. He focused on two issues. He was a strong anti-labor conservative who lobbied hard for right-to-work laws (giving workers the right to chose if they want to join a union), and he was vehemently opposed to U.S. recognition of Communist China. Because of his passion on this issue he became known in Washington as the Senator from Formosa. But Knowland had problems. He lacked popular appeal and, not unlike Taft, was not much of a vote-getter outside his own state. In addition, Eisenhower disliked him, a fact well known on Capitol Hill. The relationship between Ike and Taft had been one of cordial disagreement between two Republican titans. In fact, the two men got along fairly well. But Eisenhower simply refused to suffer Knowland. [T]here seems to be no final answer to the question, Eisenhower wrote of Knowland in his diary, How stupid can you get?²⁶ Knowland had other problems. There were rumors that his wife hated Washington so much that she had threatened to move back to California and file for divorce if Big Bill insisted on running for the Senate again in 1958. To save his marriage, Knowland decided he would resign his Senate seat and jump into the California governor’s race.²⁷ To most conservatives (not knowing Knowland’s personal problems) this actually made political sense. He would run for president in 1960 from the governor’s chair in California rather than as a political insider from Capitol Hill. It seemed like a perfect strategy to conservatives who intrinsically distrusted federal authority over the power of the states. Goodwin Knight, the sitting California governor, even accommodated the strategy by stepping aside and agreeing to run for Knowland’s Senate seat. Both men lost.

The 1958 election was a disaster for the Republicans. It showed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the party was weak and in disarray, and that the only thing going for the GOP was Ike himself. And for conservatives the election was even more disastrous. They were even rejected by Ike. The Republicans suffered a net loss of forty-eight seats in the House and thirteen seats in the Senate—a loss far worse than the party would receive in the Democratic landslide of 1964 and the biggest Democratic party gains since

Sie haben das Ende dieser Vorschau erreicht. Registrieren Sie sich, um mehr zu lesen!
Seite 1 von 1

Rezensionen

Was die anderen über Liberalism's Last Hurrah denken

0
0 Bewertungen / 0 Rezensionen
Wie hat es Ihnen gefallen?
Bewertung: 0 von 5 Sternen

Leser-Rezensionen